Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Angus View Post
I just don't know how government regulating Super Powered individuals would save lives. To me it's all a sham, so they could control who, why and when Super Heroes do their thing. They'll use the Super Heroes to do their bidding.
For me, the movie's central conflict (what we know of it, at least) works well because *both* sides have solid arguments behind them.

Government oversight means that the public can have assurance that their democratically-elected representatives are looking out for them. When you've got superheroes who are essentially walking WMDs, people will need to be reassured that someone's looking out for their interests, so they don't have to be constantly in fear for their lives because one of these 'heroes' could blunder or lash out in rage, free from any real accountability.

But at the same time, regulation and oversight risks political interference, turning superheroes' lives into military tools servicing political agenda. There's also the argument which would close to the heart for a WWII veteran like Rogers: the inherent danger of allowing a government, even a democratically-elected one, to categorise and regulate human beings based on differences in body, mind and ability.

Solid arguments exist both in favour and in opposition, distinguished mainly by the perspective and motivations of the individual. If the movie plays it that way, and both sides of the 'civil war' honestly believe they're doing the right thing for the right reasons, it'll make the struggle feel all the more 'real' and tragic.